JohnLesser

That does not answer the question, how does the volume of space in the box end up a volume of space in the balloon, the balloons surface offers no ''isolation.'' Meaning the space inside the balloon is not isolated from the rest of the outer space by the surface of the skin of the balloon. deflate the balloon and like magic the volume of space is back in the box or the other way , the points are back outside of the balloon.

I asked a question, I have not implied anything, I asked how does the spacial volume of the box end up inside of the balloon ? I used coordinate system to show in another way what I meant by my question to remove any confusion from the question. I know the balloon is air tight, I know the balloon is water tight, I even know if the balloon is opaque it is stops light or some light, but seemingly space can not be displaced by the balloons surface , the balloons surface seemingly passing through space as if it was nothing there and the space ending up inside of the balloon.

The air inside the balloon has no real bearing on the question, we know how the air gets into the balloon and how the pressure of the air expands the balloon, but the volume of space inside the balloon somehow gets from the outside to the inside . Originally the volume of space was in the box, the box is now filled with inflated balloon, but the volume in the box is now inside the balloon.

Oh i see the doe's error now , thx. I am using xyz , how am I misusing geometry? We have two geometrical points inside of XYZ , a balloon inflates, both points end up inside of the balloon. I am not making that up , what is wrong with it?

I know space isn't a substance, I know it doe's not need to pass through the balloon but regardless it doe's anyway. Do you deny that geometrical positions outside of the balloons interior in the box , do not end up inside the interior of the balloon when inflated inside the box?

I was told to ask questions, I was not told the difficulty to set of the question. You say the expanding surface will displace the existing volume around it, I agree it will displace the existing air surrounding it, however the space in the box definitely ends up inside the balloon, the balloons surface is displaced in space , the space is seemingly in situate position and can not be displaced?

Then you are not accounting for all the factors,

Are you saying that space passes through the balloons skin and the balloons skin passes through space? The skin offering no resistance in permitivity and permeability to space?

Ok , Place two geometrical points 20 cm apart (A) and (B) Diagram ...........A------------------------------B...................... Between point (A) and (B) is space and beyond both points is space. Place a deflated balloon central of both points. Represented by X in the diagram ...............A-------------x-----------------B................. I inflate the balloon which has a 26 cm diameter x axis Point A and Point B end up inside of the balloon how? No, I actually want to know how the space of the box ends up inside of the balloon. The air is displaced by the balloons surface and pressured out of the box, but the space remains. But by ''magic'' ends up inside the balloon.

I sometimes do and I sometimes don't, not sure, looks better to me. I think because of don't.

I do not object to being moderated, I am not rude and always remain polite, I do not have notions such as giant lizard people , I have genuine interest and genuine discussion. But to discuss, both sides have to be taken into consideration. I am already on other sites, naked science forum and philosophy and physics forum, I believe they are presently stuck for answer to my notions. Quoting present information is not really an answer to my notions in my opinion. Quoting present information did not prove me wrong, the point is most forum members won't admit if they have it wrong. If anyone in the world can prove my premise to be wrong, then I would admit I was wrong. But, members ignored my premise and discussed other things. I provided evidence, your own information, it was ignored

I recently inflated a balloon inside a box, how doe's the box space end up inside the balloon?

Thank you for your advice, noted. You obviously understood my question so why did you not step in and defend me ? Please remember I have been working on my notions for several year, I perceive myself to be correct so might come in heavy handed at the start. Your question is what I was asking, but then when/if an answer was given, I would look for flaws in the answer, that is me, I need certainty in my mind. So either way I would argue back, questioning the teacher, if I think something is incorrect I am not going to lye down and take it to be the truth. added- I tried to explain the question with the answers and details. added- you want me to ask a question I feel I already know the answer too? Ok, i will go over to physics and ask a question.

Then if that is the case, please explain why , if a person tries to say something of modern physics is not right, do they get banned or post closed? I do not understand how you suppose to discuss if the discussion is biased towards the regulars who only ever defend present information? If you disagree with them , they report you. How doe's this forum allow discussion when that seems the normal run of the mill around here? I admit tingly have talked some garbage over the years on science forums, however in the thread I had closed, I was using all the science, ''science'' had taught me over the years, to discuss the possibilities of a wrong. Nobody even tried to discuss what I was saying, I understand rigor and you as a moderator have to apply some rigor, however like I said, nobody discussed what I was talking about. You are correct I am a nobody, but you can see clearly by my efforts I am not a troll, I just ask you to determine such a thing, but remembering I am human too and people sometimes are ambiguous. I need to discuss relativity and can't.

Seemingly there is no where to discuss things on this forum then. It is more of an accept it to be true or else forum?

I am afraid if I speak I will get banned, so dare not ask a question. So maybe in the lounge, I can sit around drinking coffee and talk about anything? What are the lounge rules of posting?

There is 0 evidence that you are a scientist or anything of such, I should not have to prove myself to you, what would you like to know about almost anything you can think of? I can tell you in your terms or speculate about it.

I am sorry moderator but you can't call a section speculations then tel people they have to provide a precise model and theory at that stage of discussion . I look for relative agreement before I continue something. My questions were ignored per normal, questions that the yes answers too, agree with me. What is the point of providing an axiom premise which took me ages to devise, if the premise is ignored? My premise for argument should of allowed the thread to stay open, a person only needs to understand the premise to discuss it.

I have spent several years learning ''your'' science, I know more than the average person, I understand relativity and it is quite clear to me that most of the world doe's not. They can't even get the definition of speculation correct let alone define time correctly.

I still do not understand why you relating this to a speculation about misinterpretation, I have not argued what you observe does not happen, I said it did, I was arguing about our interpretation of time compared to simultaneity on another planet. So I still do not understand what you want me to explain and why?

Most of them, most of what I said, I adding nothing new from myself really, I only discussed mainstream. It is not my fault if nobody can ''see'' what I was on about. I did not ignore length contraction at all, I did discuss this if you read the thread.

And here we go with dunning and krugger etc, I have heard that so many times as a poor excuse for not being able to answer the posters questions/speculations. You fail to answer because it shows the relative truth, not because you think it is wrong. Most of you probably didn't even read it or skipped posts, just picking up bits of information, not serious enough about science to actually care. News for you, it will happen, when forums are silenced for answers a person knows they are correct. Regardless what you think I will succeed in getting a single notion in Wiki if not multiple notions. I still have time on my side in my early 40's

You might say good now, it is not my loss, I bring a bit of fun to science with some 'wacked' out speculations, but also some rather precise speculations. Would you want me to post when elsewhere I prove myself correct?

Perhaps I did not quite understand your question or ''see' how it was related, but if you understood what I said you would know why I deem myself to be correct. I never said there was not a time dilation, I totally agreed there was, however like normal in a science forum the history of the thread is ignored.

I did not ask you or any other mod to re-open that thread. It just means I will not be posting nay more notions here in the future. I have two separate threads running in other science forums, they seem to find good discussion and leave the post running . I have not broke your rules, this tells me you fail to debate my notions and have no answer to them .